Gerard would have sold his business with Allison working there. Financially, leaving Allison, was not an option. Gerard told the marriage counsellor, Carmel Ritchie, his wife didn’t trust him. Gerard was only there because Allison wanted him to, not because he wanted to save the marriage. The advice Gerard received from the marriage counsellor was to sit and listen to this wife. Allison always blamed herself, after the affair, she knew someone else was at fault.

Allison was over the moon that Gerard had gone to see the counsellor. It is an insight into her mind. This phrase does not mean that they were back on an even keel as Gerard suggested. Gerard would have the jury believe it was just Toni making the contact. Not true. The emails show that.

Same as the explanation of the shaving cuts, same as the financials, he had to make up a story to explain his actions.

Gerard tells Toni that he loves her, he tells her in the details and on the phone.

How do you put all that together other than that he loves Toni?

Gerard’s claim that he and Allison’s question and answer session was on 18th April, is not true.

Gerard made it clear to the police early on that it was on 19th April.”

Mr Fuller is discussing the night of 18th April, when Nigel and Elaine came to watch the children.

Fuller, “Is this when Allison retired for the night and wrote out her list of questions? Allison retired and left her husband, watching TV with his parents. If Allison was so upset about the birth of her nephew, what happened the next day?

The 19th April was a normal day. Allison took the children to school, she told friends she was happy about the birth. Nobody noticed anything unusual.

Yet, Gerard, would have you believe the question and answer session happened the night before.

On 19th April, the staff described Allison as upbeat, laughing and joking, she introduced a trainer to her husband. Allison was excited about the conference the next day, was excited about plans for the business.

Gerard told the police everything was fine, there wasn’t a reason that his wife would disappear. Allison had a hair appointment, children were at the school cross country. The kids ate dinner at Nigel and Elaine’s, then went home and were tucked into bed.

What we didn’t hear about was the conversation with Toni, except for Toni Mc Hugh.

Going from about 5:03pm until about 5:40pm, Gerard was talking to Toni Mc Hugh. The conversation was inflamed when it was raised that Allison and Toni would be at the same conference the next day. Gerard used the words “two of my staff are going”. He didn’t have the courage to say straight up it was his wife.

Gerard said that both Allison and Toni contacted him when they bumped into each other at the gym. Allison had flashbacks about it.

Gerard insisted that he was not concerned about the two women running into each other. Toni made the decision to leave the business herself after Allison found out about the affair. Toni was angry at the person who let the affair slip. There wasn’t a suggestion that she was angry at Gerard until he made the claim.

Please believe Toni’s version of events. Toni told Gerard it was unfair for both women to be at the conference. Toni had no option, she had begun a new job. She had to go.

Toni insisted that Gerard warn Allison. You might say that that is significant pressure on Gerard. It was that afternoon, 19th April, on the phone to Toni, that he said he was going to sell the business. It had not been that long since Gerard had told Sue Heath on the phone that he was about to go broke.

Toni said that she was angry on the phone, that she was expressing her anger.

In September, 2011, Gerard had to make significant changes. He told his staff about the affair, Allison came to work.

What was going to happen if Allison found out for a second time?

Gerard claimed he did nothing about the two women meeting the next day, that he didn’t have a concern. When the ultimatum was coming the second time, what decision would he make?

He was going to be shown to be disingenuous, a coward or a fool. You would think the personal risks to Gerard were huge.

We was in jeopardy, in respect to his friends, family and business. You add that to the scratches, the blood in the car, the leaves in the hair.

Gerard didn’t have any explanation for his charger being connected at 1:48am other than it must have been Allison.

That morning, 20th April, there was a series of phone calls to Allison almost straight away. Why is that? He doesn’t know what time Allison is supposed to be meeting Kate Rankine for the conference.

COURT – Text message Gerard sent to Allison at 6:41am asking where she is.

“Gerard – where are you?”

The cars are there, she could only have gone for a walk. The message talks about the girls being up, and making their lunches. It was always the plan for Gerard to get the girls ready. Gerard didn’t bundle the girls into the car and do a quick couple of laps. He called his parents and waited for them.

Gerard tried calling a police officer he knew before searching the streets for her. It was a 24 hour station, he would have gotten a recorded message and options to be put through.

Gerard and his sister searched the area, no sign of her.

It is now 7:15am, a number of calls unanswered, a couple of texts not responded to, an unsuccessful search.

Gerard made a 000 call on the side of the road, he goes home, then reverses the car in.

The police arrive at 8:00am. Gerard claimed that he answered all the questions from police although he declined to make a statement.

The jury has heard Gerard’s voice on tapes, during interviews. It is for you to determine what level of anxiety.

Gerard told police that he did not know whether Allison came to bed or not. Gerard told them about the affair. He didn’t want his father to know. Gerard phoned his own family, his own friends, he made work calls, all before phoning Allison’s friends and family.

By the time more police arrived, three and a half hours on, it must have been something more sinister. Gerard told police it was out of character for Allison to disappear, she hadn’t ever done anything like that before.

Gerard described his wife’s mental health as good. He didn’t even know if she was still on medication. Gerard said Allison was “all better now”. Gerard didn’t make any reference to any adverse reactions to her medication.

In this trail, the mental health issue has been amplified to justify what he did. If there was any risk of any mental health problems, that is when we would have heard about them, on 20th April, 2012.

According to Gerard, there wasn’t anything to explain why his wife wasn’t home. She had gone for a walk, and would be back soon. There wasn’t mention of the conversation with Toni the night before. Only that Toni knows about that.

Was Allison likely to stay up late watching the Footy Show on the couch when she had a big day the next day?

She was likely to go or a walk that morning when she was time poor, Gerard had agreed to get the girls ready. So, she didn’t have any time for the school drop off when the school is not very far away.

It was highly unlikely that on the morning of the 20th April, 2012, Allison would be walking the streets of Brookfield.

Gerard told police that morning, twice, “we had our 15 minutes last night.” Gerard was at great pains to tell police “nothing came out of the 15 minute session, it was all good.”

Gerard told police the truth that day. Allison hadn’t asked the questions on 18th April, the questions were done on the 19th.

Allison’s questions about his affair were quite rudimentary. Movies, driving together, how many times? Did you kiss and hug, were you scared of being seen together, were the seats down, did you lie there afterwards?

Place yourself in Mr Baden-Clay’s position. Place yourself in the sordid detail of it. If the 18th April is correct, why did they leave the house to ask and answer the questions? The children were already in be. (Gerard had already told the court under oath, that he and Allison had driven to Mt Cooth-tha on 18th April, for the 15 minute session while his parents babysat).

Edit: Gerard’s parents allegedly appear to cover a lot for their caterpillar.

Mr Fuller is reading from Allison’s list. “I couldn’t go back to her even if I wanted to”.

Fuller, “That isn’t a question, that is a statement from Gerard. Gerard made that statement. Contrast that with the emails.

Mr Fuller, “If he made that statement to her, it was simply a lie. Toni made her choices back in 2008 when she left her partner and found her own place to live. Coincidentally, a picture of Toni’s place was on the next page of Allison’s journal.

It took Gerard hours to call Allison’s parents. A major search was already underway. Just after 9:00am Gerard calls his three friends, the ones who had lent him money. At 9:58am he calls Kerry-Anne Walker. When he speaks to Toni, she asks, “did you argue”. She knows what the conflict was likely to be.

Gerard tells Toni to lay low. The next day, he tells Toni to tell the truth to the police. What option did he have? He knows the police are looking at him. They’re taking photos of his injuries. If he’d told her to lie, it would have unravelled.

A SHORT BREAK.

Mr Fuller is talking about Gerard’s contact with Toni after Allison went missing.

Mr Fuller, “Gerard contacted Toni again. It is NOT HER contacting HIM, he tells her he loves her.

Toni deletes her emails and texts.

Gerard then wants to meet with her, to explain to her about his other affairs.

Is this someone who just placates? Or does he have real affection for her?

Gerard told her to “fall in love with someone else” because “things weren’t looking good for me”.

Gerard was finally walking away from Toni because of the circumstances he found himself in. Gerard had manipulated her throughout their relationship.

Gerard was engaged in deceptive and manipulative behaviour across all his relationship with her. It is all about him, his life, his business, his needs.”

Court – A page from Allison’s journal.

The journal mentions a large portrait with Toni.

Mr Fuller, “We know how Allison feels. She still gets sick in her stomach. Gerard had the opportunity, he had the scratches on his cheek. He lies about them, attempts to disguise them.

Gerard hasn’t changed after his behaviour is exposed. We have it in black and white, the emails, the tension between Gerard and Toni. We have the financial strain, the debts to be called in.

We have the real prospect of Allison and Toni coming together, the real prospect of him being exposed.

The way he has been exposed in this trial.

We have the real prospect of Allison not being willing to forgive him a second time.

This is not about Allison’s mental health, her drug taking, walking off inexplicably into the night.

You might think it is highly unusual for someone with a history of sertraline use to suddenly overdose.

You might think it highly unusual that the plants in her hair were all from the Brookfield Road house. You might think it highly unusual for a man to cut himself and it look like fingernail scratches.

You might think it highly unusual for Allison’s blood to be in her car.

It is highly unusual for Gerard to have killed his wife? NO, THAT IS WHAT HE DID.

It was close, it was personal, it was violent.

Gerard was frustrated, the double life, the daily deceptions, the risk of it all coming crashing down.

He just wanted to wipe the slate clean.

MR TODD FULLER, QC, HAS CLOSED HIS ARGUMENT.

JUSTICE BYRNE HAS BEGUN HIS SUMMATION.

Justice Byrne, “Your roll is to determine on the evidence whether he is guilty or not guilty.

I must sum up and then you will retire and consider your verdict.

You MUST abide by my instructions. You must decide what evidence you accept, then apply the law. You are the sole judges of the facts. You must strike an unanimous verdict.

Your verdict must be on the evidence and only the evidence. The exhibits will all be available in the jury room.”

Justice Byrne is explaining what makes evidence.:

01. Answers from witnesses only, not statements from lawyers.

02. The jury is to ignore any information they may have read or heard about the case outside of the courtroom.

03. The jury must ignore social networking, including Twitter, Facebook and Youtube.

04. You must not visit the scene or anywhere else of relevance.

05. It would be unjust for you to consider any information outside of the courtroom.

06. It is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for a juror to inquire about an accused person.

07. You are not detectives, you are judges of the facts.

08. In the past trials have been abandoned because jurors have looked things up on the internet.

09. Jurors are duty bound to bring it to my attention if you are aware of a fellow juror doing the wrong thing.

10. You must not pay any regard to news reports.

11. The jury must not allow media reports to influence your thoughts.

12. You can draw inferences from facts that you have heard during the trial.

13. The inferences must be reasonable. They must be logical and rational conclusions drawn from the facts.

14. You cannot use instinct or guess work.

15. Evidence can be accepted whole, in part of not at all.

16. You must consider whether a witness seems reliable. Did they see, hear, know things they are testifying about?

17. Does it differ from things that the witness testified to previously?

18. An observation of something said or done is not always reliable. Memory can be fallible.

19. People do not always observe closely sights and sounds, let alone manage to recollect them two years later.

20. As I said, it is up to you to assess the evidence and what weight you give a witness’s testimony.

21. The accused is presumed to be innocent.

22. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

23. If you are left with reasonable doubt, your duty is to acquit.

24. If there is no reasonable doubt, you must find him guilty.

25. This is a circumstantial case – still acceptable proof of facts. This means that it must be only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstances. Emotion does not have any part to play in your decision.

26. The accused was not obliged to give evidence or to call witnesses.

27. It is the prosecution who had the burden of proof.

28. It is not a matter of making a choice between prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the accused.

29. If you don’t believe the evidence of the accused, you shouldn’t jump directly to his guilt.

TEN MINUTE BREAK

Jury is back.

Justice Byrnes is explaining the difference between murder and manslaughter.

“Justice Byrnes, “With regard to murder, you must be satisfied that Gerard caused the death of his wife with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Manslaughter is an unlawful killing, with the intention to harm not being involved.

Neither the prosecution or the defence contends manslaughter.

The motive is not material to murder or manslaughter. Sometimes the motive is never known to anyone but the murderer. The Prosecution does not have to establish motive.

The evidence of things the deceased has said, can be unreliable. Most of it is second hand.

(Edit – I feel sick, the above were Allison’s thoughts, in private, without any intent to hurt anyone, without agenda).

Justice Byrne, “The recorded interviews with the Baden-Clay children are evidence. None spoke of hearing anything. It is routine to show recorded interviews with children rather than have them testify in court.

You (the jury) will have transcripts of recordings with the children. The recording is evidence, not the transcript.

The view of the Kholo Creek bridge and the house is not evidence. It is just to assist in your understanding. The areas have changed considerably since 2012.”

Justice Byrne is discussing what weight should be put towards statements that were made to the police by Gerard.

Justice Byrne is now discussing the evidence given by experts, what the difference is between opinions and facts.

Justice Byrne, “The Baden-clay house is 13km from the Kholo Creek bridge. It takes 13 to 20 minutes to drive from Brookfield to the bridge.”

Justice Byrne is talking about the clothing that Allison was wearing. He mentions that her phone wasn’t ever found and that she normally took it walking with her. He said that Allison’s body was found on a pleateau down a steep bank.

Justice Byrne, “The pathologist found significant decomposition. The pathologist found that the decomposition was consistent with death 11 days earlier. Changes to her body were consistent with her body having been in the same position for all of that time. The pathologist didn’t find any injuries, only a “probable” bruise to the chest.

A chip was on Allison’s tooth that could not be aged. There wasn’t a sign of sexual assault. The pathologist didn’t find any evidence of bruises and scratches from the body being moved by the water.

The pathologist found higher than normal levels of sertraline, the decomposition of the body can cause that.

The pathologist expected significant injuries like fractures, these would be present if Allison had fallen from the bridge.

If she fell and landed in the water, this could have resulted in no injuries. The pathologist did NOT find any evidence of drowning, although it couldn’t be ruled out.”

Justice Byrne is summarising the evidence from the entomologist expert.

Justice Byrne is summarising the evidence from the diatom expert. Diatoms are usually found if someone drowns. Diatoms weren’t discovered.

Justice Byrne is discussing the forensic expert, Amanda Reeves. Ms Reeves found that there was an indication of a second DNA profile under the nails. There wasn’t enough to test.

Justice Byrne is discussing the evidence submitted with regard to Zoloft levels, submitted by the toxicologist. Zoloft isn’t particularly toxic. There hasn’t EVER been a single case of Zoloft alone, causing death. There wasn’t any ingestion of a large number of tables in the hours before her death.

The toxicologist said that seratonin syndrome should not be expected in someone taking a normal does of sertraline. The toxicologist gave the opinion that sertraline did not contribute to Allison’s death.

The defence’s toxicologist accepted that there had not been a recent ingestion of a large amount of sertraline.”

Justice Bryne is discussing the evidence of Dr Gordon Guymer, the botanist. Dr Guymer identified six species of plant entwined in Allison’s hair and body. Dr Guymer found one Cat’s Claw Creeper leaf was pulled from the plant after being caught on something. Dr Guymer found that most were fallen leaves. Dr Guymer found only two species at the creek, but all six at the house.

Toni McHugh gave evidence that she began an affair with Gerard in August, 2008. Toni said that the affair was up and down all the time. Toni spoke of Gerard breaking things off after Allison found out about their affair. The affair was not over. Toni spoke of being contacted again by Gerard, thins resumed.

Court – emails shown between Gerard and Toni.

Justice Byrne, “The two were in regular contact in April, 2012. On 19th April, they spoke on the phone. Gerard told Toni that she and Allison would both be at the real estate conference the next day.

Toni said that she “lost it”. Gerard needed to tell Allison, it wasn’t fair on either of them. Toni said that she asked Gerard what he was going to do. Gerard spoke about selling the business. Tonii called Gerard from the conference the next day to ask where Allison was.

Toni was at the police station the next day. Gerard called and said, “just answer yes or no, have you told them we are back together?”

Adjourned until 2:30pm

Justice John Byrne continues his summation:

Justice Byrne, “Dr Tom George treated Allison for years, he said that her symptoms of depression cleared up early on. Dr George recommended a marriage counsellor for Allison. According to Dr George, apart from the first two consulations, Allison was not depressed. Dr George didn’t have any concerns that Allison was suicidal and that Allison presented as extremely attached to her children.”

Justice Byrne referred to evidence from Dr Bourke, who prescribed Allison the anti-depressant, Zoloft, and discussed with her about the stress over the affair. Dr Bourke’s opinion was that she was not at risk of suicide.

Justice Bryne referred to Ms Nutting, a psychologist, who saw both Gerard and Allison. Ms Nutting spoke to Allison of panic attacks during the second pregancy. When Ms Nutting saw Allison at first, she was not experiencing depression symptoms. During the second appointment after the affair was discovered, Allison was more fragile. Allison was better at the third appointment.

Justice Byrne referred to evidence from the defence witness Dr Schramm. Dr Schramm referred to reports and had not interviewed Allison or Gerard. Dr Schramm said that people with depression are more likely to commit suicide and don’t always leave a note.

There isn’t any evidence whatsoever that Allison experienced any adverse reactions to Zoloft.

Justice Byrne is now referring to evidence from relationship counsellor Carmel Ritchie. Allison told Ms Ritchie that she was a conflict avoider and that her husband criticised her parenting skills. Ms Richie spoke to the accused alone initially. GBC told her that he wanted to wipe the past slate clean.

Ms Ritchie recommended 15 minute sessions every second night so that Allison could talk. Gerard was very resistant initially to these sessions.”

One of the juror’s chairs just broke, the bailiff quickly found a replacement.

Justice Byrne, “Gerard eventually agreed. Allison was brought back to the room. Allison advised Gerard that she was “over the moon” that he had spent time with the counsellor.”

Justice Byrne is discussing Allison’s journal.

Justice Byrne, “On 19th April, Allison went to a four hour training course, the trainer thought that Allison was very positive. Allison then drove to the hairdressers. Gerard spoke to Toni on the phone around 5:00pm.

Allison spoke to Olivia on the phone at 8:30pm. She was speaking quietly, with signs that the children were going to sleep. Gerard’s phone was plugged into the charge at 1:48am, and removed around 6:00am.”

Justice Byrne is running through the events of the morning of 20th April and referring to Gerard explaining to the police that he’d cut himself shaving. Gerard was asked by police about his wife’s state of mind. “Pretty good” he said. Gerard explained that the 15 minute sessions recommended by the counsellor to the police. Gerard told the police “we had one last night” and said that there were some difficult things that they had talked about. Gerard told the police that he honestly didn’t know whether Allison had come to bed the night before that he is a heavy sleeper.”

Justice Byrne said that the police asked Gerard how his wife had been the last week, or so, “Pretty good” he’d said. Gerard had told police that his wife had had a list of questions for him that she’d asked on the 19th April, (the night of her death). Gerard told the police that his financial situation was “pretty dire”.”

Justice Byrne is discussing the interview between Gerard and the police on 21st April.

Justice Byrne, “Gerard told police that Allison must have come to bed because her side of the doona was folded back. When Gerard was asked if Allison was suicidal, he said, “no”. Gerard went to see Dr Candice Beaven about the scratches, he told her he’d cut himself shaving. Gerard told her it was one motion, then said it must have been a couple, he was rushed. Gerard then went to see Dr Renu Kumar about his enquiries, he told her the cuts on his face from an old razor. “A rush job.”

Justice Byrne is now discussing the forensic examination of the house.

“There isn’t any indication of blood in the house or carport area. There isn’t an indication of a cleanup. Gerard’s razor was tested for blood, there wasn’t any found, although blood had been washed away by water.

There were flow rivulets of blood found in the back of the car.”

Justice Byrne is discussing the evidence from experts who interpreted Gerard’s injuries.

Justice Byrne, “Dr Margaret Stark said that the marks on Gerard’s face were typical of fingernail scratches.”

Dr Robert Hoskins, who said that the marks had characteristics of fingernail scratches, said that it was “extremely implausible” that they were caused by a razor.

Justice Byrne referred to evidence from Dr David Wells, who said that the first thing that came to mind was fingernail scratches.

Justice Byrne is now summarising evidence of Gerard’s three friends who lent him money. He didn’t repay any of them by April, 2012.

Judge is referring to evidence of Ms Sue Heath. Gerard spoke to her about borrowing money from her friend Dr Flegg. The prosecution contends that Gerard lied, both in evidence and when speaking to the police. Prosecution contends that Gerard lied about the cuts on his face. It would be wrong to approach the case, that if Gerard lied, it must mean he killed his wife.

It must be a lie “that an innocent person would not tell” to find him guilty. If the prosecution is to prove that he lied about the cuts, they would have to have proved that they were not caused by a razor. People do not always act rationally and telling a lie might be explained in some way.

Both murder and manslaughter involve unlawful killing. To convict of murder, you must be sure that he intended to kill, even if you believe he lied about the scratches.

Justice Byrne told the jury that they could consider the lessor charge of manslaughter.

“You may wish to consider first murder, which is the more serious charge.

“If you find the accused guilty of murder, you do not need to consider manslaughter.

“But if you find the accused not guilty of murder, then consider the alternative of manslaughter.”

Justice Byrne is speaking about the conduct of the accused, according to the prosecution.

Justice Byrne, “They cannot use Gerard’s alleged disposal of Allison’s body as proof of intent. The prosecution contends that the scratches were caused in a violent struggle, meaning that there was intent.

Justice Byrne is now referring to Gerard’s evidence. “Gerard denied killing his wife, he said he got the cuts on his face shaving, and gave other explanations for other injuries.

Justice Byrne is discussing Gerard’s evidence with regard to his wife’s mental health.

Gerard and Toni “always” recommenced their physical relationship. Gerard and Allison attended counselling while he was having an affair. Gerard did not mention it.

Justice Byrne is now summarising Gerard’s evidence about the business, the partners and moving to new premises, that he borrowed $90,000.00 from each of his three friends.

Gerard got back together with Toni for the sake of the business.

Justice Byrne is discussing the evidence on Allison discovering the affair. Gerard broke things off with Toni, said she was furious, and threw things.

Gerard’s evidence with Allison’s reaction, she insisted on checking his phone and gave him a curfew.

Justice Byrne is detailing Gerard’s evidence on getting back together with Toni after Allison found out about the affair. Allisn was unaware that he was continuing the affair. Gerard would delete call history from his mobile phone. Gerard and Allison went to see a marriage counsellor on 16th April, 2012. Gerard was resistant to talking about the affair. To him it seemed strange.

Justice Byrne is discussing the email from Toni to Gerard, he said that Gerard said he was doing his best to push Toni away at that time. Gerard’s evidence was that he would roll over and tell Toni whatever she wanted to hear as she was volatile. Gerard’s evidence was that he gave Toni the date, 1st July, for when he would come to her, a random. Gerard’s evidence was that he definitely did not intend to leave his wife.

Court – Gerard’s email to Toni, “leave things to me now, I love you”.

Gerard’s evidence was that they had the 15 minute session on 18th April, after a drive to Mt Coot-tha. The next day was 19th April, the last day that Allison was seen alive. Gerard’s evidence was that he doesn’t know how the toys got into the Captiva, he doesn’t know how her blood got there. His evidence is that he and Allison sat on the couch and chatted after the girls went to bed and that Allison asked a couple of follow up questions. Gerard admired her strength and forgiveness.

He denied placing his mobile phone on charge at 1:48am. Gerard demonstrated to the court how he cut himself shaving, doing it in three separate motions.

On 21st April, Gerard attended the Brookfield command post and spoke with the police.

Gerard testified that Toni was upset about Allison going to the same conference the next day and wanted Allison advised. He did not advise Allison and he was not concerned about the two women.

Gerard called the life insurance company on 1st May to determine how he could make a claim.

Gerard said that his father told him he had to notify the insurance company of her death.

Gerard testified that financially, the business was turning around, and that it was “absolutely untrue” that he was going to leave his wife for his mistress.

Justice Byrne is now talking about Gerard’s cross examination.

Justice Byrne, “Gerard did not tell his wife that he was sleeping with Toni McHugh after Allison found out about the affair. Gerard’s evidence was that the emails and claims of love were all to placate her or “for the sake of the business”.

Gerard used a secret email account to contact Toni. He didn’t intend to tell his wife.

Justice is discussing Gerard’s financial position under cross examination.

“Gerard’s evidence was that he was under constant pressure from Toni to leave his wife. Gerard acknowledged that he had told Toni in December, 2011 that he wanted to leave his wife and come to her “unconditionally”. He said that he did not consider that he was in a relationship with Toni. Gerard said that he and Allison had recommenced a sexual relationship in February, 2012. Despite Toni’s reaction to Allison going to the conference, he didn’t have a fear that Toni would approach Allison.

Gerard was asked about the phone charger on Allison’s side, why she would plug his phone in on his side of the bed.

Gerard did not disclose to police at any stage his conversations with Toni on the Thursday afternoon.

Gerard did not tell police that he had injuries on his chest when they took the photographs of his face.

Gerard rejected suggestions that he killed his wife, that she clawed at his face, probably as he smothered her. Gerard denied having ever physically harming his wife. Gerard said that he didn’t know how the leaves arrived in Allison’s hair.

JUSTICE BYRNE WILL NOW SUMMARISE THE LAWYER’S CLOSING ADDRESSES, tomorrow at 10:am, he apologised for any repetition.

Hello everyone
Well I think it will be another good day today when Fuller continues to sum up, as he is effectively Allison’s voice now that she can’t speak for herself. He is doing a fantastic job. I went to court on Monday and Tuesday and have posted my thoughts at the end of the Day 16 thread. If anyone is even considering going into court I really recommend that you do. It may even continue tomorrow I’d think with the Judge’s summing up still to come.

Have a good day today in Court. Thank you again for the amazing coverage you provide. I will be glued again today to your posts. Here is to the Crown doing a spectacular job in wrapping this beast up today.

I tweeted your blog this morning and shall do during the day as its the essential trial coverage to view if one wishes to make an informed decision on the trial, not just press tweets! Also signed up to wordpress so I could write to you and encourage you. Go do Allison and the Dickie’s proud on covering the case as it happens so the public can really see what is truly being done by the Defence.

My apologies, I am new to WordPress & have no idea how to drive it 🙂 Please bear with me whilst I stumble about it. Are you referring in your reply that its ok to reblog your blog? I did not wish to copy your hard work to my blog, however if it gets your work out there I am more than happy to 🙂

Another day on this trial, how are you doing Dear? I hope you did have a good cry last night, brings out the poision you have had to listen to and cleanses you to keep going. Perhaps a nice bath with some calming music would be good for you on this cold Brissy night.

Im in awe of your compassion for Allison and her family. We need more people in the world like you and your followers on your blog. We care and its nice to see, so very nice to see.

I agree with all you say about the trial, thank you so much for your thoughts.

In my uneducated opinion, I think that Judge Byrne is already directing the jury towards at least manslaughter.

I wonder how tough it is for the Dickies, their family and friends, and the lovely people who have been in court, it has been difficult enough to type it out, little alone being there, so, thank you so much, for your kind shoulder and thank you to everyone who has cared. I cuddle your namesake, S, my kitten, who comes to visit, as he patiently waits for his turn for a cuddle, purring his little heart out, looking at me with his innocent eyes, full of trust.

We all care, and there are people here who need extra special hugs and love, which I send to you as you go through your own pain.

Yes, if you wanted to reblog what has been written, that is fine. I visited your blog, I was a bit confused, as I’d just woken, lol, and then noticed your beautiful page, and knew all would be fine. All I ever wanted was for like minded people to do something, to feel a sense of community in a safe environment. Our community is growing, with beautiful people.

I hope that we can all keep in touch. I don’t know where this blog will take us, but I hope it is somewhere and that we can give back in some way to those who need us. Sometimes people just need an ear, sometimes people just need to give one.

I have to say, again, that when our horses have gone missing, we have driven in the car, driven up and down the driveways of residents of Brookfield, although one shouldn’t, while phoning whomever may help.

“You might think it highly unusual that the plants in her hair were all from the Brookfield Road house. You might think it highly unusual for a man to cut himself and it look like fingernail scratches.

You might think it highly unusual for Allison’s blood to be in her car.

It is highly unusual for Gerard to have killed his wife? NO, THAT IS WHAT HE DID.

It was close, it was personal, it was violent.

Gerard was frustrated, the double life, the daily deceptions, the risk of it all coming crashing down.

Mike is reformatting his computer at the moment; however, dear Sad for Allison, he wanted me to post this to you:

Thank You SFA , much appreciated as i wondered about Fullers tone and body language and whether (as it appeared via Tweets ) at the end of the day he threw in a bit of ‘ fire n brimstone’

Your description of Allisons Family is heart wrenching and shows them as nothing less than saints .. their understanding and love for their grandaughters is far beyond my capacities , there’s no way i’d take them to see ‘That Man’ or ‘Those Skull Scum’ I applaud them remembering how for over 40 yrs they did their best to protect their daughter only to have ‘That Man’ snuff out her very existence.

Through all this they have shown dignity and have (unlike their son in law) stood by their daughter and grand children .

I am left with nothing but contempt for GBC and his grubby family.

As for Michael Byrne QC , you sir are a despicable human being and dont ever try justifying your foul suggestions by saying ” it’s my job ” as i wont buy it and if you leave the courthouse and get hit by a bus I’ll be the first one to buy the driver a beer.
You will leave this world a despised and lonely man well remembered as a liar with not a single moral fibre in his body … even your peers of whom most lie well below the man who opens his umbrella under a snakes belly stand tall compared to you
.I do feel for any family you had , they must be so ashamed.

Mr Fuller , thank you for being Allison’s voice , I’m pleased to see you are dealing in fact unlike the slimebag appearing for GBC …

You have shown the jurors well beyond reasonable doubt that only one person was and will ever be a suspect .

One thing we’ve never heard is , what happened to the Real Estate Agency which several peoplle testified was valued at being worth near to a half million dollars , is it still operational, if not were employees paid , are the ‘mates GBC would never let down ‘ being paid etc etc ?

Being such a valueable agency i guess some investor snapped it up and as for monies owed by GBC i’d imagine his fine upstanding father would be maintaining his sons payments whilst he defends himself …( and as i glanced out the window at a wet Victorian winter’s day a flock of pink elephants flew by )

We’ve heard how GBC is a pillar of the community , a gentleman . a great husband , the great dad … yet he provided little for his family using funds that could have purchased a home or a car for them on his many lovers .

No mention of his credit card except that payments were $2450.00 per month , based on my card’s interest and cost , that was a total of over $125k borrowed , imagine yhe cost 2 yrs on if unpaid , yes as Mr Byrne said , an honorable pillar of the community.

Unless I am mistaken;
Byrne QC was doing his job, according to the instructions of Gerrrard Baden Clay (accomplices unknown)
I am not a legal person, but it has been pointed out elsewhere that if there was no legal representation re guilty and supposed innocence, etc then the whole matter would be like an Inquisition.
Like I said I am not a legal person.
The way I understand matters is this. Mr Byrne was acting instructions from his “client”.
Stand to be corrected re “client” but my understanding is that said client is stone cold Stoney broke and is relying on Centrelink.
He, Byrne was limited with his resources, and he was pretty much slam dunked when Gerrard got up and spoke.
Gerr-Rid sort of said stuff according to the litany of the Baden Clay, required script, but who notices small stuff like that?
What I trying to say is this; I do not believe Byrne is is the problem here.
Byrne is dealing with unadulterated gutter tripe. IMO.

Hi Moonlight, I wondered about this too, but think the judge is referring to things others said about Allison. Such as NBC and OW testifying that she couldn’t cope, was depressed, wore dark colours etc. I suppose in this vein would also be that the hairdresser mentioned she was subdued, colleagues at Century 21 thought she seemed in good spirits etc. I don’t think he is actually referring here to Allison’s journal. Well I certainly hope not…

Justice Byrne, “A chip was on Allison’s tooth that could not be aged. There wasn’t a sign of sexual assault. The pathologist didn’t find any evidence of bruises and scratches from the body being moved by the water.”

A great pity the search stayed around Brookfield so long (thanks to the phone hidden there – forward planning indicated), delaying the search area being widened for a week or so. If only they could have found her earlier, more DNA may have been found. But we have what we have, and another person’s DNA being under her left nail whilst he sported major battle scars on his right side, add up well.

Justice Byrne is discussing the evidence submitted with regard to Zoloft levels, submitted by the toxicologist. Zoloft isn’t particularly toxic. There hasn’t EVER been a single case of Zoloft alone, causing death. There wasn’t any ingestion of a large number of tables in the hours before her death.

The Toxicologist said that seratonin syndrome should not be expected in someone taking a normal does of sertraline. The toxicologist gave the opinion that sertraline did not contribute to Allison’s death.

Justice Byrne, “Toni McHugh gave evidence that she began an affair with Gerard in August, 2008. Toni said that the affair was up and down all the time. Toni spoke of Gerard breaking things off after Allison found out about their affair. The affair was not over. Toni spoke of being contacted again by Gerard, thins resumed.”

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C..[1] However, Biblical references were made prior to this that differentiate unintentional killing due to accident, and premeditated killing.[2]

The definition of manslaughter differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind; or the circumstances under which the killing occurred (mitigating factors). Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all jurisdictions.[3]

In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, Canada, and some Australian states, “adequate provocation” is a partial defence to a charge of murder, which, if accepted by the jury, would convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter.

Evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) of Allison’s murder having been planned:
(A person would not think of all this if it was a momentary crime of passion IMO)
Enquiries about Allison’s insurance in weeks leading up to her murder
Had to pay back several loans at EOFY 30 June, unable to raise any such funds
Claimed her insurance even before she was formally identified
Ensures only a 15 year old will can be found for Allison, which names him the sole beneficiary.
Promises Toni to sort out his business/financial problems, be single and come to her unconditionally by 1 July.
Telling Toni how much being apart pains him too and that she must ‘leave IT to him’ now (ie he has a plan to make it happen)
Hid her body UNDER a bridge where it would be safe from being found for a week or two
Hiding Allison’s phone in Brookfield area, to keep the search for her there for a week or two while DNA and COD evidence deteriorates.
Planting a Zoloft packet on the dashboard of Allison’s car
Portrait of him and Allison already moved the next day – this man was ‘moving on’ at a rate of knots!
….probably several more….???

. Cleaned up professionally so that there wasn’t real evidence of cleaning up
. Placed teacups out to look as if Allison had had a cup of tea before her morning walk.
. Knew what Allison was wearing.
. Rang his friends FIRST and did some business before ringing the Dickies
. The children were tired and didn’t hear anything, air conditioner could have been turned on or tablets given to help them sleep after their cross country.
. Olivia, with her experience in Intelligence from the army was available and clucking over him (Intelligence Officers plan, develop and manage intelligence operations overseas in often difficult environments that draw on their judgement, intellect and inner strengths).

What would GBC NOT have to lie about if he was innocent?
The scratches on his face, body, injury to his hand (clearly from an altercation with Allison)
That he was concerned and looking for his wife (when he never seriously looked for her, was dressed up and trying to get an appt with a criminal defense lawyer)
That he slept like a baby all night (while his phone charger says differently)
That he does not know Kholo bridge or the scout grounds at all (like the back of his hand!)
That she was depressed and suicidal (in contrast to his initial testimony and that of her friends that she was fine)
That he did not love Toni (while he told her he did repeatedly, and even told staff that he did)
Those fake texts he send Allison the next morning (he would have behaved very differently)
…there must be more….???

Byrne, “It must be a lie “that an innocent person would not tell” to find him guilty. If the prosecution is to prove that he lied about the cuts, they would have to have proved that they were not caused by a razor. People do not always act rationaly and telling a lie might be explained in some way.”

Huh…from me too…..if he was innocent he would not have to lie about the supposed cuts which clearly aren’t cuts. Well that is a lie that an innocent person would not tell, so what is the man getting at? Not crystal clear to me….can’t see any other reason an innocent man would tell such a lie….???

This statement is worrying, RIP. To me, that was a worrisome direction. I would then begin to think of old fashioned men’s clubs, and “closing ranks” type of behaviour, if the thinking for the trial headed that way. I can’t think of anything, Toni scratching him in some meet up? There isn’t any other reason…that comment from the judge wasn’t good.

It would take a lot of force to suffocate someone. Not exactly something done “oops!” by accident. And in the context of all his other lies he would not have had to tell if he was innocent (few listed above) …..no accident IMO.

I felt sick also Moonlight reading Allison’s journal could not be counted on 😦 I read that 3 times, third time slowly with mouth agape to see if I were needing stronger glasses or a new brain processor. Why? It’s her mind and soul put into words… How else is she able to speak? I hope the jury do see it as we have.

With the jury being 7 men and 5 women, I also sincerely pray and hope those 7 gentlemen are of the highest moral values, who believe that sex is something much more than “just sex” and believe it is also a myriad of other things than simply that.

The Dickie family will hopefully be put out of their misery with regard to this trial soon and I pray, oh how I pray justice is done for them, their grandchildren, loved ones, all who care about Allison and Allison, bless her soul.

We now must leave it to the wonder which is karma, who will do her thing. I plan to be giving her a really big nudge about this trial tonight 🙂

Hi Karmaisabeautifulthing,
Sometimes, Men are the best judges of men.
I mean that quite seriously.
Some men seem to have an uncanny ability of seeing things that women do not.
Maybe the comment can be explained by a man?
Er….. A real man, I mean. (Not of the Clay-man variety)

Day 16: Justice Byrne addresses the jury, “You will not be sequestered, it is up to you if you want to deliberate on Fridays and weekends. “Please contemplate sitting hours of 9:00am until 4:30pm excluding weekends.”

Justice Byrne, Day 17, “Your roll is to determine on the evidence whether he is guilty or not guilty.

I must sum up and then you will retire and consider your verdict.

You MUST abide by my instructions. You must decide what evidence you accept, then apply the law. You are the sole judges of the facts. You must strike an unanimous verdict.

3.5.1 Mandatory sequestration of juries during deliberation
The current law (s. 647 Cr.C.) states: “The judge may, at any time before the jury retires to consider its verdict, permit the members of the jury to separate.”The judge may have discretion to allow jurors to separate up to the start of deliberation, but the rule is that the jury be sequestered throughout the trial and until there is a verdict. While they deliberate, jurors must be sequestered.

It may be the rule in theory, but sequestration of juries prior to deliberation has for some time been more the exception, particularly because of the length of trials. [62] Some members of the Steering Committee suggested that the rule of mandatory sequestration during deliberation be reviewed because of the burden it places on jurors and the logistics and costs it creates for the administration of justice (hotels, transportation, security, etc.).

The original purpose of sequestering juries was to compel jurors to reach a verdict quickly by denying them water and food. Fortunately, that approach is a thing of the past! Today, juries are sequestered because of the real or perceived risk of outside influence.

But the explanation contains the words “prior to deliberation” – we are not there yet.

Also, am I right in remembering that there have now been two instances of potential “tampering” with either jury members or witnesses during this trial?

I guess it doesn’t really matter one way or another.

The way opinion is being shared around Brisbane at the moment, I rather fancy the odds that one or more clandestine jurors find themselves being swayed by unsolicited conversations with a Joe or Josephine Shopper while checking out this weekend’s specials in Coles bakery section.

I hope the jury has full access to the detail. Pertinent that he promised to sort out his financial problems and come to her a free man on 1 July. Only way to accomplish that is to get rid of his wife and find a lot of money, somehow. Sadly, we know which avenue he pursued to accomplish both in one go.

“And one expert after another, Mr Fuller said, had testified that the marks on Gerard’s face were typical of fingernail scratches.

Fuller zoomed in on the marks on a photograph of Baden-Clay’s face and asked the jury to have a close look.

Mr Fuller reminded the jury another person’s DNA may have been under the fingernails of Mrs Baden-Clay’s left hand.

“They are fingernail marks, they are on his face, they occurred after his children went to sleep and before his children got up,’’ he said.

“There was a struggle between the two of them and she left her mark upon him.

“They are damning and link to the act of violence without any doubt.”

The killer dumped Allison’s body at the creek to avoid the consequences, he said.

“Now, do we know anybody who is good at covering their tracks, avoiding suspicion, hiding what they have done from others, keeping up appearances in adversity, willing to do or say to people whatever they need to protect their own position? Somebody who has lived a lie.’’

Oh it was amazing when Fuller delivered those words in your last paragraph Moonlight. A real light-bulb moment! The fact that someone else’s DNA was found under Allison’s fingernails on her left hand are very telling. I do so hope the jury are on the ball. Three of them seemed highly engaged when I was in the main court on Monday, many seemed somewhat blank, even though listening… They had a mountain of paperwork in front of them, so I really hope they are capable of rational deduction.

To take away your sigh, and for all of us having to perpetually asses, it would be fabulous if our justice system gave people accused of cases such as this, a big gulp of truth serum! Assist them to simply tell the truth, stop the hurt, pain and emotional drain for all involved. GBC, IKYK. Alas, I am pipe dreaming!

Another look at Toni’s 4th statement made me realise she did know more about the business than I initally thought, she was able to provide sums, to whom monies were owed, rent roll splits, as to if GBC had liabilty insurance etc etc.

I also would have liked to have heard more about the telephone calls from the payphones be spoken about in Court, particularly his statement to Toni being “I know you have done nothing wrong” when he told the Court that he was not sure if Toni was involved afterall.

Toni may have saved her own life by not taking a life insurance policy as NBC suggested or she may have met Allsion’s maker!

How do the jury seem in person? Tired? Listening intently? I understand a Juror’s chair broke with a loud crack today and my initial thought was that I hope they were not eering on GBC’s side of the fence and Allison gave them a little wake up call.

Hi Karma, lovely to have you here. On Monday I had the opportunity to observe the jury as you can only see them if you’re in the main court, not the overflow courtrooms. Three of them took notes conscientiously throughout the day, many of them looked blank and somewhat bored especially during the morning session. This was the day when Byrne was giving his summary for the defense and admittedly it was pretty boring as he droned on and on and repeated himself constantly, but I’m sure I saw at least 2 of the jurors appear to doze off! The Judge watches them constantly (I assume observing their focus and attention) and wisely suggested that there is a break of 10-15 minutes every 45 minutes as that is what he figures is the length of time most of us can concentrate for.

Difficult to say whether they are intelligent or not. Hopefully they are logical and can interpret facts. Hopefully they have the courage of their convictions too. In the afternoon when Byrne posed his theory of how Allison took a Zoloft and wandered 14km into the night to lie under the Kholo Bridge in a dazed and confused state, many of them were sitting up and paying attention, and some of them frowning…

Thank you so very much for the detailed descriptions of your observations in the Courtroom along with your thoughts, as with Moonlight you make one feel like they are there. THANK YOU!

I cannot fathom the emotional toll it must take on you each day you are there, so thank you kindly for sharing.

Hopefully today will be the last day of summing up and Allison’s family, loved ones and yourselves have only 1 more session to attend, the verdict and sentencing of GM (as per Moonlight’s apt description) and Allison gets the justice she so deserves.

You are welcome Karma. I agree with you, I don’t know how Allison’s family manage to sit through all the evidence about their daughter. Some of the things that were said were awful and would be difficult to take, and they seem to have so much dignity and inner strength. My heart really goes out to them all so as you say, let’s hope after today there is only one more session with the verdict – and that the jury get it right!

I was only able to go to court on Monday and Tuesday this week as I took time off work to go in, but although it is extremely tiring emotionally and as you’re paying attention (especially the day Fuller gave his summing up) it is also fascinating experiencing the court atmosphere and seeing the Judge, barristers and jury – not to mention the accused in the dock (who doesn’t move a muscle), and all the family members.

I would like to wish those of you who were attending Court today a good day, and thank you very much in advance for any information you post.

If the trial does spill over into next week I am hoping to attend the verdict as the children shall be back at school and I can give back a little and help contribute here on Moonlight’s blog also. I have a new Teddy Bear puppy and will find a baby sitter for him hopefully that day also. Fingers crossed.

I have done some thinking this morning and I am sorry if I am jumping too far forward here, so please dont feel the need to reply to the below until such time is relevant.

I am no expert when it comes to legalities here in Queensland, however if GBC did get the lessor charge of Manslaughter what is the maximum and minimum sentences that carries? I understand from the Peter Brett Cowan trial that 20 years is a life sentence (nowhere near enough IMHO unfortunately) which means if the jury do convict GBC for murder and throw the book at him that is the maximun he would receive I imagine. Manslaughter not so sure though? Or is it up to the Judge to decide the length of the sentence once the Jury give a guilty verdict of murder/manslaughter?

Again, apologies if I am moving ahead on topic here with the above paragraph and it can be answered another time. I do hope for Allison and her family that it is the maximum sentence and they can breathe a little easier for a while knowing he is unable to do further damage to them for some time.

I imagine the Dickie household each evening with the lies being told about Allison and my heart breaks thinking about them having to endure such a living nightmare. They must wish they had never met GBC and are completely blown away by the audacity he has to tell such rubbish in order to slither his way out of taking their darling Daughter’s life. Incomprehensible. Bless all of the Dickie family and their dear darling hearts.

That would be fantastic if you could go in to hear the verdict Karma! I’m not sure what the sentence is for manslaughter – I would think 8 to 10 years? GBC has already been in Arthur Gorrie for 2, so that would come off his sentence, as well as the parole period. Murder in Queensland at the time Allison died carried a 15 year jail term, and this was changed to 20 years a few months after that. So I’d say taking off the 2 years he’s already been inside and parole, he may only serve 10 or 11 years. It doesn’t seem right for taking someone’s life does it? I don’t know why they call it a “life sentence” as it certainly is not that and seems way too lenient to me! Allison’s daughters and family will never have her back and there must be such a gaping hole in their lives.

You are absolutely right it does not seem near enough for taking someone’s life, more like a slap on the wrist. I wish the term “life” actually mean life, a life for a life if you will.

I forgot about time served and parole periods 😦

Has the charge of “interfereing with a corpse” been discussed in the trial? I am hoping given the below it may add a further 2 years given the Crown has this listed as a charge they are persuing also.

CRIMINAL CODE – SECT 236

236 Misconduct with regard to corpses
Any person who, without lawful justification or excuse, the proof of which lies on the personâ€”

(a) neglects to perform any duty imposed upon the person by law, or undertaken by the person, whether for reward or otherwise, touching the burial or other disposition of a human body or human remains; or
(b) improperly or indecently interferes with, or offers any indignity to, any dead human body or human remains, whether buried or not;
is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.